Since the Spring 2017 academic term just began, I thought it would be helpful to highlight what our faculty have been up to (at least as it pertains to publications) over the last year.

One of the blessings of being at the Charlotte campus is that I get to serve with some of the finest faculty in the country in their respective fields. If you are planning to go to seminary, and you are making a decision this Spring, then hopefully this list will help!

Here is a quick sampling of some recent activity (alphabetized by author): [Read more…]

How do modern psychological theories fit with the Christian worldview? That is an enormously important question.

If you want to explore the answers to that question, then you will want to know that this week (Jan 16-20) RTS Charlotte hosts Dr. Heath Lambert who will teach our Theology and Secular Psychology course. This course is part of Charlotte’s biblical counseling degree program.

For advocates of Reformed theology, we are keen to emphasize the seriousness of sin. Sin is a big deal. Each and every one of them. Indeed, this is precisely why we all desperately need a Savior.

As true as this is, however, our enthusiasm for maintaining the seriousness of sin (which is good) can lead us to make additional statements which may not be so true (depending on how they are understood). One of these statements, and the next installment in our “Taking Back Christianese” series, is, “All sins are equal in God’s sight.”

On the surface, this phrase seems like a great way to uphold our commitment to sin’s seriousness. It is the equivalent of the phrase “there are no little sins” (a line you probably first heard from your parents after you locked your little sister in her room).

Our purpose in this post (as in all the posts in this series) is simply to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of this phrase. We will do this by asking three questions: (1) Why do people use this phrase? (2) What is correct or helpful about this phrase? and (3) What is problematic about this phrase? [Read more…]

The debate in our culture over sexuality has been raging for a while now. And sometimes it is difficult to find calm and clear voices who can cut through the rhetoric and the posturing and just provide solid biblical teaching on these complex issues.

For this reason, I am thankful for RTS Charlotte’sDr. James Anderson, associate professor of theology and philosophy. In the video below, Dr. Anderson addresses our students at a lunch-time conversation on the issue of transgenderism. It is a wonderfully clear and concise treatment of this important subject.

James is one of the brightest minds in philosophical theology today. Check out his website here, and his latest book Why Should I Believe Christianity?If you are looking to study apologetics, philosophy, or theology, you need to come to Charlotte to study with him.

In this video, James lays out eight helpful theses about transgenderism, followed by some interesting Q&A. Here are the theses: [Read more…]

It is now clear that our culture’s quest for sexual freedom is leading to some problematic and disturbing places. A few years ago it was homosexual marriage and now it is the transgender movement. It is frightening to think of what is next (here is one possibility).

There are a number of helpful resources that Christians have offered to respond to these trends. But, I appreciate this recent and brief (only 3+ minutes) video by RTS Charlotte professor of theology and philosophy, James Anderson.

James is one of the brightest minds in philosophical theology today. Check out his website here, and his latest book What’s Your Worldview?If you are looking to study apologetics, philosophy, or theology, you need to come to Charlotte to study with him.

Here is James’ answer to the question: “What is the Christian Response to Transgenderism?”:

GSA is when a mother and her biological son, or a father and his biological daughter, are in a sexual relationship.

I had never heard this term before, but I suppose it sounds better than the word that really describes such relationships: incest.

And now GSA people want to get married.

I saw an example of this in a recent article about a 51 year-old mother and her 32 year-old son who are in a sexual relationship. Here is the mother’s defense of her behavior:

She said: “This is not incest, it is GSA. We are like peas in a pod and meant to be together.

“I know people will say we’re disgusting, that we should be able to control our feelings, but when you’re hit by a love so consuming you are willing to give up everything for it, you have to fight for it.

What is incredible about all of this, is that this is precisely the same situation that same-sex marriage was in just a few years ago. It was deemed to be unnatural and unhealthy and now our culture has fully endorsed it.

Notice also that the woman above even used the same argument that is used to justify same-sex marriage, namely that they are in “love,” and are not “able to control our feelings.”

In other words, this behavior is not a choice, but is genetic. And who can deny us the opportunity to express our love?

Get ready for round two of the marriage wars. The move to justify incest will be next.

Of course, sadly this should come as no surprise. In many of my prior posts on our culture’s gender confusion (e.g., see here), I have pointed out what many others have also pointed out, namely that the culture’s quest to redefine marriage will not (and cannot) stop with same-sex marriage.

If a man and a man are allowed to marry, then what keeps us from denying most anyone (any combination of people) the right to marry?

Why not a mother and her biological son? Why not a father and his biological daughter? Why not a man and two men? Or a man and two women? Or a woman and two men?

There’s no logical reason–given the rationale used for same-sex marriage–why we should deny marriage to these other groups. To do so would simply be discriminatory (on modern definitions of the term). Why should they not be allowed to enjoy the blessings of marriage? Why should they not be allowed to marry those they love?

This simply highlights one of the most often missed points in the whole same-sex marriage debate. Advocates of same-sex marriage often claim, “Everyone else gets to marry the person they love, so why can’t we? That’s discrimination.”

But this sort of claim is monumentally misleading. The marriage laws of this country have never said people can marry whomever they love.

Same-sex marriage advocates make it seem as if they are singled out unjustly. But, that is not the case. There have always been restrictions on marriage such as age, gender, biological relationships, number of spouses, etc.

What same-sex marriage advocates want is for our country to remove just one of these restrictions, the one pertaining to gender. The problem is that the rationale for removing that restriction–people should be allowed to marry whom they love–can be equally used to remove all the restrictions.

No doubt there will be some who would be pleased with such a development. “Yes,” they might say, “let’s remove all restrictions on marriage.”

But, if marriage can simply be whatever a person wants to make it, then it is swallowed up in an ocean of subjectivity. If marriage is entirely self-constructed there can be no such thing as “marriage.”

Marriage becomes a chimera. An illusion.

And this is why Christians have been opposed to same-sex marriage from the start. We are opposed to it simply because it isn’t marriage. Indeed, we’ve been opposed to it because, in the end, it will not enhance marriage in our country but lead to its disappearance.

The issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage just won’t go away these days. Thus, Christians need to make sure they are well-equipped to meet the challenges of the post-Christian world we find ourselves in.

Don Fortson is the Professor of Church History here at RTS Charlotte, and Rollin Grams is professor of New Testament at Gordon Conwell.

What makes this book unique is simple. This book responds to those who claim homosexuality is compatible with Christianity by considering both the evidence from church history and the evidence from the Bible.

In other words, it considers not only what the Bible says, but what Christians have said the Bible says throughout the ages. I know of no other recent volume that does this.

And I can tell you, the result is absolutely devastating for the claim that Christianity and homosexuality go together. A person might be able to convince themselves that the Bible allows it (by reinterpreting even the plainest of passages), but it is a bit hard to explain away 2000 years of absolutely consistent church history.

And that is exactly what we find in the historical record. From the very beginning of the church, all the way to the modern day, Christians have uniformly declared homosexuality to be incompatible with the Christian faith.

This consistency is particularly noteworthy in the earliest centuries because the church was quite diverse and represented a variety of cultures, ethnicities, and pagan backgrounds. Yet, with one voice, the church was unified it its opposition to homosexual behavior.

In essence, this forces the pro-homosexuality camp to argue that only in the modern day, really only in the last few years, have Christians, for the first time, finally understood what the Bible really teaches about homosexuality. And, every other Christian generation, for two-thousand years, has been bigoted, discriminatory, and oppressive.

The arrogance and audacity of a claim is stunning. But, that is precisely what the pro-homosexual camp is forced to believe.

Of course, some who are committed to the superiority of the modern will no doubt respond by saying, “Just because the church believes something doesn’t make it right.” True. But, the key issue in this case is that the church believes something that is also clearly the plain teaching of Scripture. Thus, we have both the testimony of Scripture and the church on the same side.

And if the Bible and the history of the church both seem to be saying the same thing, then that is a compelling reason to think it is true.

For those who are intellectually honest, this just becomes too much to bear. After reading Fortson’s and Rollin’s book, they may not agree with what Christians have always believed. But, they would have to admit that Christians have always believed it.

It goes without saying that this country has experienced a monumental cultural and ethical shift in the last 5-8 years. What was once seen as wrong is now seen as right. And what was seen as right is now seen as wrong.

One is reminded of the woe in Isaiah 5:20: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

At the forefront of this issue is the topic of homosexuality. And Christians face two distinctive questions in regard to this issue: (1) What does the Bible teach about homosexuality? and (2) What should we think about same-sex marriage in our culture?

On Monday, January 11th, 6:30-8:30PM, RTS Charlotte will host Dr. James White who will give two sessions on precisely these two questions. You can get all the details about these upcoming seminars here.

James is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is the author of more than twenty books, a professor, an accomplished debater, and an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

Dr. White will also be teaching our course on Apologetics here at RTS Charlotte that same week, Jan 11-15. If you are interested in taking that course, or just auditing that course, see here for more info.

Dr. White’s lectures are actually part of a larger series we do here at RTS called EQUIP workshops. These workshops are not seminary classes, but are evening events designed to train Christians in the Charlotte community. Prior EQUIP speakers have included Ed Welch, Tim Lane, and Deepak Reju.

On Jan 18th, David Powlison will do a forthcoming EQUIP workshop on the topic of depression and suffering (I will highlight this event in a later post).

If you are in the Charlotte area on Jan 11th, I hope to see you there. In the meantime, here is a video of James White debating liberal scholar John Shelby Spong on the topic of homosexuality:

In my prior post, I argued that the primary argument for why same-sex marriage should be legalized–“it is discriminatory to tell consenting adults who love each other that they cannot get married”–is fatally flawed. On the logic of this argument, virtually any kind of marriage could be justified, including polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage.

In one of the comments on my prior post, there was a link to a fantastic video of Ryan Anderson speaking for the Heritage Foundation. He makes precisely this point and utterly dismantles the argument that denial of same-sex marriage is discrimination.

What is particularly stunning is that the man asking the question in the video is totally unaware of the inconsistency of his argument. Indeed, he just talks in circles, unable to provide a coherent answer to the very simple question of why homosexuals should be granted special rights, but not polygamous or incestuous couples.

When you listen to this exchange, it becomes excruciatingly clear that the debate over same-sex marriage in this country is not being decided (by most people) on the basis of reason or logic. But on the basis of emotion and cultural pressure.

There has been a lot of talk in the last week over the oral arguments presented for and against same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media is presenting the outcome as a foregone conclusion. There are no reasonable or logical reasons to be against it, we are told.

But, there is one main reason to be against same-sex marriage that the mainstream media simply won’t talk about. And it is a reason I’ve mentioned numerous times on this website (e.g., see prior posts here and here), and that many others have also observed.

That reason is simply this: the logic being used to promote same-sex marriage could be used to support a variety of other sexually questionable forms of marriage.

If marriage is just about consenting adults that love each other, then why can’t a mother and her adult son get married? Why can’t an adult brother and adult sister get married? Why can’t a man marry three wives? Or a wife marry three husbands?

As I said in a prior post, “The logic used to justify homosexual marriage is like an acid that will eventually eat its way through every remaining sexual boundary in our culture. And pretty soon, there will be no boundaries.”

This very problem with the same-sex marriage argument was noted by several justices during oral arguments. The mainstream media hasn’t talked much about this, but here is a transcript of the conversation. Bonauto is the lawyer arguing for same-sex marriage and it is clear that she has no coherent answer to this problem. My own comments are embedded in the dialogue in blue.

Justice Samuel Alito: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?

Mary Bonauto: I believe so, Your Honor.

Alito: What would be the reason?

This is the question Bonauto has been dreading…

Bonauto: There’d be two. One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons. But I want to also just go back to the wait and see question for a moment, if I may. Because—

Notice how irrelevant the first response is: “One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as marriage.” This is a nonsense statement. The whole issue is what logic the State would use to make such a decision. To raise the question of whether the State would is just a diversionary tactic.

The issue of “coercion and consent” is also a red herring. You will notice below that she just repeats this mantra with no explanation for what it means or for how it rules out other forms of marriage. And, as you will see, neither Alito or Scalia even understand what she is trying to say.

How quickly she tries to change the subject shows that she realizes it is a problem for her view.

Alito: Yes. I hope you will come back to mine. If you want to go back to the earlier one –

Bonauto: No, no.

Alito: — then you can come back to mine.

Bonauto: Well, that’s what — I mean, that is — I mean, the State –

Alito: Well, what if there’s no — these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it’s not–it’s not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers. What would be the ground under–under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?

Alito rightly won’t let this go. On a judicial level, the arguments for same-sex marriage will just lead to future court cases where those wanting polygamist marriage or incest marriage claim their civil rights are being violated.

Bonauto: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you’re talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we’ve had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental right –

This is incredible. Bonauto actually rejects polygamous marriage on the grounds that “that is not the same thing we’ve had in marriage.” In other words, Bonauto actually appeals to tradition–to the long history of the way marriage has always been. But, this same rationale would lead one to reject same-sex marriage. If we are talking about the history of the institution, then same-sex marriage has no chance.

Alito: But–well, I don’t know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it’s a good one. So this is no — why is that a greater break?

Notice that Alito picks up on the inconsistency of her argument. If the history of marriage is the standard, then that would not only rule out polygamy but same-sex marriage as well. He is clearly confused by her reasoning when he says: “But–well, I don’t know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before.”

Bonauto: The question is one of–again, assuming it’s within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there’s a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there’d be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don’t apply here, when we’re talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. So that’s my answer on that.

All the talk of the complications over divorce is not a meaningful argument. Divorce laws are always complicated–and yes, could be even more complicated in a polygamous relationship. But, is this really enough for the state to deprive people of their constitutional rights (assuming her own argument for a moment)? If she is correct that consenting adults can define marriage for themselves, then the complications of divorce are not relevant. She is straining out a gnat, but swallowing a camel.

In the end, Bonauto simply does not have a coherent argument for why marriage should be changed for homosexuals, but not changed for polygamist and incestuous individuals.

And this simply shows what everyone has always known: homosexuals want to be able to redefine marriage for themselves, but don’t want to let others redefine marriage. Which means they don’t want equal treatment, they want special treatment.

It seems that Rob Bell and Oprah Winfrey are pretty good friends these days. Bell has appeared on Oprah’s show numerous times, and just recently appeared, along with his wife Kristen, on her “Super Soul Sunday” episode over Valentine’s Day weekend. Their appearance was designed to promote their new book, The ZimZum of Love: A New Way of Understanding Marriage (HarperOne: 2014).

Now, I have to confess that I have no idea what the main title means. But, the subtitle is pretty bold. Given that marriage dates back to the very creation of mankind in Genesis, do we really need a new version of it? Is something wrong with the original version? Apparently Bell thinks so. At least as it pertains to the issue of gay marriage, which he endorses in this new book.

The issue of gay marriage even comes up in the interview with Oprah. Since Oprah is unlikely to challenge the coherence of Bell’s rationale (she wholeheartedly agrees with him), I thought I would fill in the gap by offering an analysis of his statements here. Here are some excerpts from the interview.

1. During the interview, Kristen Bell reads a line from the book: “Marriage, gay and straight, is a gift to the world because the world needs more not less love, fidelity, commitment, devotion and sacrifice,”

This is one of the statements that resonates with our modern world. After all, who is opposed to “love”? Who doesn’t want more “love” in the world? This sort of rhetoric is very effective at making anyone opposed to gay marriage look like they are against love. It makes them looks like they are hateful.

But, never do such statements define what “love” really is. For our culture, “love” means whatever you want it to mean. There are no rules, no restrictions, no boundaries. But, let’s imagine some different scenarios and see whether Bell’s logic makes sense. Let’s imagine an adult son and his mother wanted to get married. Is Bell ready to say this incestuous marriage “is a gift to the world because the world needs more not less love“? Doubtful. Or, perhaps a man wants three wives. Is Bell ready to say this polygamous marriage is “a gift to the world because the world needs more not less love?” If he is consistent, he would have to say yes.

On Bell’s 1960’s “All you need is Love” view of marriage, it could never be a definable institution that people participate in. Rather, marriage simply becomes whatever each person wants it to be. Thus, on Bell’s view there can be no such thing as marriage. Because “marriage” is defined by the whims and preferences of each individual, it just evaporates into subjectivism.

2. After Oprah asked him why he included gay marriage in his book, Bell said, “One of the oldest aches in the bones of humanity is loneliness…Loneliness is not good for the world. Whoever you are, gay or straight, it is totally normal, natural and healthy to want someone to go through life with. It’s central to our humanity. We want someone to go on the journey with.”

I’ve got to say, this is masterful work from Bell. Framing the debate over homosexual marriage around the issue of loneliness is brilliant. After all, if anyone objects it looks like they are a cruel, unfeeling person who doesn’t care about the suffering of the homosexual community.

But, once again, when you dig into Bell’s statements more deeply, you realized they are flawed at a fundamental level. Bell says loneliness “is not good for the world.” Maybe so. But, sexual immorality is also not good for the world. Casting off God’s guidance on what counts as legitimate healthy sexual activity is also not good for the world. Despite popular beliefs, immoral sexual activity is not harmless. It can have serious emotional, spiritual, and even physical ramifications.

Even more, the “loneliness argument” Bell espouses could be used to justify virtually any sexual activity. Returning to the example above, what if an adult son and his mother wanted to get married and cited their “loneliness” as the reason? Does that make it Ok? Is polygamy also Ok on the grounds of loneliness?

But, there is an even bigger problem here for Bell. If loneliness is the issue, one does not need marriage to solve it. People live together and sleep together all the time as a cure for their loneliness. On what possible grounds could Bell object to two people living together outside of marriage? They could throw Bell’s loneliness argument right back in his face, “Come on Rob, ‘it is totally normal, natural and healthy to want someone to go through life with. It’s central to our humanity. We want someone to go on the journey with.'”

3. When Oprah asks why the church does not yet “get it” regarding gay marriage, Bell says: “I think culture is already there and the church will continue to be even more irrelevant when it quotes letters from 2,000 years ago as their best defense, when you have in front of you flesh-and-blood people who are your brothers and sisters, and aunts and uncles, and co-workers and neighbors, and they love each other and just want to go through life.”

From someone who at least pretends to be a pastor, this is a stunning statement. Notice that Bell doesn’t refer to the “Bible” or to “Scripture” or to “God’s Word” but instead refers to “letters from 2,000 years ago.” This is a pejorative (and deceptive) way of speaking designed to undermine the credibility of the Bible regarding sexual issues. These are just old letters, says Bell, pay no attention. They have nothing to say about these things. Don’t bother listening to them.

By kicking the Bible to the curb, Bell may please Oprah, but he stands in direct contrast to thousands of years of church history (not to mention the history of Israel). God’s people have always looked to the Bible as the ultimate guide for life, especially when it comes to issues of sexual ethics. Indeed, as I pointed out in a prior post, the earliest Christians stood out from the Greco-Roman world precisely in the area of their sexual behavior.

Even Jesus himself looked to the Bible as the ultimate guide for sexual ethics. He appealed to numerous biblical texts to defend the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman (e.g., Matt 19:1-9).

So, what does Bell think is a better guide for sexual ethics than the Bible? Personal experience. Why would you choose the Bible, says Bell, “when you have in front of you flesh-and-blood people who…love each other and just want to go through life.’ In other words, what should guide our decisions is the personal sexual experiences of people. We should follow what they feel is right. If this is how they find “love” then great. Thus, on Bell’s view, there are no sexual ethics. There are just people’s personal sexual preferences. Welcome to a brave new world.

Of course, as noted above. This logic puts Bell in a predicament. If everyone gets to just pick their own sexual practices, then he must acknowledge that incestuous love, polygamous love, and many other kinds of deviant sexual behavior are all legitimate.

With the help of Rob Bell, I am sure that our culture is headed precisely in this direction. The logic used to justify homosexual marriage is like an acid that will eventually eat its way through every remaining sexual boundary in our culture. And pretty soon, there will be no boundaries.

And this will not create a culture of love, peace, and fulfillment as Bell and Oprah predict. It will create a culture of sexual, emotional, spiritual, and even physical brokenness. Ironically, therefore, it will create a culture of loneliness. The very thing Bell said that homosexual marriage is designed to cure.

When the culture eventually hits rock bottom, the hope is people will begin to see that a society without any sexual boundaries is self-destructive. The hope is that they will be like the young cowboy Billy in the 1993 movie Tombstone. After running with the lawless crowd for a while, Billy begins to see how destructive that life really is. Then he comes to his senses and declares to the gang leader, “I’m sorry sir, but we’ve got to have some law.”

Yes, even in the world of sex and marriage, “We’ve got to have some law.” And when a culture begins to realize it, usually that is when revival takes place.

In the midst of the high-octane cultural wars of the last five years–particularly the debate over homosexual marriage–evangelical Christians have been slapped with all sorts of pejorative labels. Words such as “bigoted,” “arrogant,” “exclusive,” “dogmatic,” and “homophobic” are just a few.

But, there are probably two labels that stand out the most. First, Christians are regularly regarded as intolerant. Christians are not only regarded as intolerant religiously–because they affirm the words of Jesus that “no one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6)–but they are regarded as intolerant ethically, because they refuse to approve any and all behaviors as morally good.

Second, Christians are regularly (and ironically) regarded as haters. Apparently, our modern world regards the act of telling someone they’re wrong as a form of hatred–it is a slight against mankind (of course, it is never explained how the charge does not apply equally in the other direction since those who make this charge are telling Christians they are wrong!; but we shall leave that issue unaddressed for the time being).

Needless to say, such a situation can be very discouraging to Christians in the modern day. We might be tempted to despair and think that the church is entering into dark days. But, a little historical perspective might be useful here. Truth be told, this is not the first time Christians have received such labels. Indeed, they were given to Christians from the very beginning.

Pliny the Younger: Christians are Intolerant

It is well known that in the Greco-Roman world there was a pantheon of gods. Every group had their own deities, and they were easily and naturally placed alongside other deities. For the most part, no one objected to the existence of other gods. It was a polytheistic world.

Of course, the earliest Christians were as monotheistic as their Jewish predecessors and quite unwilling to play along with the standard religious practices of Greco-Roman culture. For Roman rulers trying to keep the peace, the Christian intolerance of other gods was a perennial frustration.

Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bythinia (writing c.111-113), expressed his own frustration over the fact that Christians would not “invoke the gods.” In a letter to emperor Trajan, he lamented their “stubborness and unyielding obstinancy.” In other words, he was angry over their intolerance.

Why was Pliny so bothered by this? Because the influence of the Christians had caused the pagan temples to be “deserted” and thus “very few purchasers could be found” for the sacrificial animals.

In other words, they were losing money.

To fix the problem, Pliny decided to force Christians to worship the pagan gods and curse Christ, and if they refused they were put to death. He says, “As I am informed that people who are really Christians cannot possibly be made to do any of those things.”

It is interesting to note that Pliny, while torturing these Christians, acknowledges their high moral standards: “[Christians] bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.”

Apparently, intolerance of the Roman gods is a enough of a reason to kill Christians, despite their holy lives.

Nero: Christians are Haters

In the late first-century, the Roman emperor Nero made himself famous for his persecution of Christians. The Roman historian Tacitus tells us that under Nero,

Mockery of every sort was added to their [Christians’] death. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, as exhibiting a show in the circus.

So what awful crimes did Christians commit to warrant such unthinkable torture? Tacitus acknowledges that Christians weren’t really guilty of the trumped up charges of setting fire to the city. Instead, he admits they were killed for “hatred against mankind.”

What had Christians done to warrant the charge of “haters”? Again, they refused to condone the pantheon of gods, and religious practices that went along with them.

In sum, the stories of Pliny and Nero are both encouraging and frightening at the same time. They are frightening because they sound eerily similar to the kind of language and accusations being used today against Christians. But, instead of Christians being asked to pay homage to the Roman gods to prove their acceptability, they are now being asked to pay homage to the gods of tolerance or homosexual marriage or what have you.

At the same time, these stories are encouraging. They remind us that this sort of persecution isn’t new. Indeed, this persecution was not the end of Christianity, but was the beginning. In the midst of it, the church grew, and thrived, and expanded.

As Christ said, “I will build my church. And the gates of hell shall not stand against it” (Matt 16:18).

The latin phrase reductio ad absurdum is a reference to a certain style of argument whereby an opponent’s position is pushed to its logical conclusions, and those conclusions are shown to be incoherent or ridiculous. It is to reduce an opponent’s views to absurdity.

This particular style of argument was a favorite of Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987), former professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for 43 years. Rather than seeking to “prove” the Christian worldview directly, Van Til would often take a more indirect route by performing a reductio ad absurdum on the non-Christian worldview, showing how that worldview, if followed consistently, would destroy all meaning and intelligibility.

RTS Charlotte professor of theology and philosophy, James Anderson, has taken this method of argumentation and applied it ever so effectively to the radical homosexual agenda that is so prevalent in our country today. And he does it with a good dose of British humor, wit and satire (again, note that the following is satire; it isn’t a real news story!):

Company Sued over “Homophobic” Catalog

An electronic component supplier is being sued over allegedly homophobic terminology in its product catalog. Daniel Everett, a resident of Burlington, Massachusetts, is seeking nearly $100,000 in damages from Portland-based Posnex Components for emotional distress he claims was caused by images and descriptions in the company’s Spring 2014 catalog.

Everett, an interior designer who recently married his long-term partner Kevin, first became aware of the offensive material while visiting a relative who is a DIY electronics enthusiast. “I sat down at his kitchen table and there was a Posnex catalog lying open at the section for audio and video connectors,” he explained. “As I glanced down the page, the terminology of ‘male’ and ‘female’ caught my attention. But as I looked more closely at the photos and the product descriptions, I became appalled at what I saw.”

Everett described how he felt “shaken and sick to the stomach” as he began to examine the other pages in that section of the catalog. “I’m no expert when it comes to electronics, but I know prejudice and bigotry when I see it. It was crystal clear from the images and descriptions that the ‘male’ and ‘female’ components had been deliberately designed only to connect with each other. The obvious insinuation was that other forms of coupling are dysfunctional. I felt utterly humiliated and degraded. The Posnex catalog is nothing less than homophobic propaganda. It’s subliminal hate speech.”

In a brief statement, a spokesperson for Posnex Components insisted that the company is “absolutely and unequivocally committed to diversity, inclusiveness, equality, and LGBTQIA rights” and “deeply regrets any offense or distress that may have been inadvertently caused by the use of more traditional electronics terminology in our catalog.”

“We have launched an internal investigation into the issue,” the spokesperson added, promising that a fuller statement would be released “just as soon as we figure out which senior executive needs to take the fall for this.”

Lindsey (formerly Lindsay) Fredericks, president and founder of Citizens Against Sexclusivism and Heteropression, expressed doubts about the sincerity of the initial response from Posnex and charged the company with being “on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of connectivity.”

“The Posnix case is merely the tip of the iceberg,” warned Fredericks. “Our research indicates that this sort of discriminatory heteronormative language is a standard feature of electronic component catalogs. Evidently this is an endemic problem. The sad fact is that the electronics industry is way behind the times when it comes to representing the full panoply of human sexual identity. Manufacturers need to move toward a diversity-celebrating inventory of components that reflect all kinds of connectivity and none. Are there components that can accept either ‘male’ or ‘female’ connectors — or both at the same time? Are there ‘male’ connectors that change into ‘female’ connectors and vice versa? Are there components that accept any number of connectors of any type? If not, why not? What about connectors that defy any categorization at all? Why is no one making unique components that connect only to themselves?”

“These are the kinds of questions that leaders in the electronics industry need to be asking,” Fredericks concluded. “But the problem doesn’t stop there. We all need to consider how our use of modern appliances and technologies reflects our values and attitudes toward gender identity. People who use predominantly heteronormative connectors in their homes and offices ought to reflect on how committed they really are to sexual equality and human rights.”

Even though this piece is satire, it sounds remarkably like something that could really happen! That fact alone tells us something about the direction of our country.

By now, much ink has been spelt on the veto of the “Religious Freedom” bill by the governor of Arizona. Pundits have gone back and forth on the merits and legitimacy of the bill, and, not surprisingly, the pro-homosexual lobby has worked hard to present it as a new form of Jim Crow.

From a Christian perspective, of course, this is unfortunate news. Regardless of the merits of the Religious Freedom bill–the contents of which have been grossly distorted by the media–the fact remains that Christians are being coerced by their own government to violate their religious freedoms. Consider just the one example of the Lexington Kentucky T-shirt company that refused to print shirts for the annual gay pride parade. Incredibly, their actions were condemned by the Human Rights Commission as “human rights violation.”

The key fact in this case (and the many others like it) has been largely overlooked: the customer was not denied service by the T-shirt company because he was homosexual, but rather because the company deemed the nature of this particular job to be a tacit affirmation of homosexuality. There is a big difference. If the homosexual customer had asked the T-shirt company to print jerseys for the local baseball team then service would not have been denied.

The pure irrationality of the legal action against this T-shirt company is evident when counterexamples are produced which no sane person would condone. Should a Jewish owner of a T-shirt company be compelled to print shirts with swastikas for the Aryan brotherhood? Should a Muslim owner of a T-shirt company be compelled to print shirts for Budweiser despite being opposed to alcohol?

These counter examples reveal the intellectual and logical bankruptcy of the aggressive homosexual lobby. It shows that their agenda is not about just having the freedom to live in peace. It is not just about the freedom to exist. It is about forcing everyone else to approve. It is about easing their conscience.

Unfortunately this type of governmental coercion is out of sync with a democratic society that at least purports to value freedom of religion.

These counter examples also reveal how unlikely it is that similar levels of persecution will be experienced by Jews and Muslims. In fact, there is currently a case in Toronto were a lesbian woman is accusing a Muslim barbershop of discrimination because they refused to cut her hair. Not sure how that case is going to turn out, but I’m putting my money on the Muslim.

In the end, it is mainly evangelical Christians who are the recipients of this sort of persecution. This selective targeting raises an important question that perhaps too few people are asking: Why? Why are Christians being singled out?

It would be too easy for Christians to see this as bad news, but I think there are reasons to see it as good news. In a paradoxical fashion, the irrational and disproportionate targeting of Christians is actually validating for the Christian worldview.

Indeed, this sort of persecution is precisely what Paul said we should expect, “We are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life” (2 Cor 2:15-16).

Thus, it is not coincidental that Christianity is receiving the brunt of the persecution. When people suppress the image of God that remains inside of them, they look for ways to suppress the image of that God any place they can find it.

It looks like the History Channel saved the best (or most controversial) for last. This last episode is provocatively entitled, “Sex and the Scriptures.” The episode description really sets the tone:

Millions of people around the world look to the Bible for moral guidance about marriage, faith and family. But could the Bible contain contradictions, or hidden meanings, that challenge our beliefs about what is right–and what is wrong–when it comes to human sexuality?

Gee, I wonder what the answer to this question will be. As we will see below, despite the veneer of neutrality here, the History Channel has no intention of presenting both sides of the issue. It has a clear agenda to push the boundaries about what the Bible really teaches about sex.

So, here are some issues the video raises, and my responses:

1. Does Ruth try to seduce Boaz? Not surprisingly, the episode quickly gets to the story of Ruth and Boaz. But, rather than seeing it as a story of love and redemption (as Boaz rescues Ruth from her life as a widow), it presents it as a story of sex and seduction. In particular, the video claims that when Ruth uncovers the feet of Boaz, it is her attempt to have sexual relations with him.

But is that really the case? It’s not surprising that modern readers may take the story in this direction (it seems like modern readers take most stories in this direction!), but it makes nonsense out of the text. For one, the Bible never shies away from telling the reader when people have sexual relations (e.g., David and Bathsheeba), so why would we have to read between the lines here? On the contrary, the text tells us not that Boaz had sexual relations with Ruth, but that he woke later in the night in surprise, saying “Who are you?”! If she were trying to send a sexual message, apparently he didn’t get it.

And then, to top it off, Boaz commends her integrity (v.10), and then shows his own integrity by deferring to a nearer kinsman-redeemer who might marry her first (v.12). These are hardly the actions of a man who just sleeps around with girls on the threshing floor.

2. Does the Bible condone sexual promiscuity for the sake of procreation? Next, the episode brings up the story of Abraham and Sarah and how they used a servant, Hagar, to have children. The use of servants/slaves as sexual partners for the sake of procreation was condoned by the Bible, we are told.

The problem with this perspective is that it is taught nowhere in the actual text of the story. The actions of Sarah (and Abraham) are not commended and lauded by Scripture, but rather their actions are portrayed as an act of faithlessness. God had promised Abraham and Sarah children, and they violated God’s law because of their impatience. If anything, therefore, the story upholds the integrity of marriage!

In all of this, the video makes no distinction between actions that are described in Scripture, versus actions that are prescribed by Scripture. The two are not the same, even though the episode frequently confuses and mixes them.

3. Does Jesus’ kindness to the prostitute in Luke 7 means he is “open” to different sexual lifestyles? Amazingly, this episode attempts to use Jesus’ interaction with the prostitute as a basis for saying that he is open to all kinds of different sexual lifestyles. This explains, it is argued, why the Pharisees in the story were so appalled–they could not believe Jesus was so accepting.

But, what is actually appalling here is the bad exegesis of this passage of Scripture. Secular/critical scholars love to use Jesus’ patience and grace to sinners as grounds for saying he approved of their sin. But, this is a twisting of the story. If they had read the story further, they would notice that Jesus is not condoning the woman’s lifestyle but praising her repentance! That is why Jesus tells the story of the moneylender who had two debtors. This woman recognized the depth of her sin, whereas the Pharisees did not. Jesus even says that her sins “are many” (v.47)! This is hardly a condoning of her lifestyle.

We should not, as this video does, confuse Christ’s forgiveness of an act, with his approval of an act. He is always gracious to repentant sinners, but that does not mean that they are not sinners.

Ironically, the modern liberal posture, which says, ‘My sexual actions are not sinful,” would be the very thing that Jesus does condemn! Thus, the interpretation of this story offered by the History Channel could not be more off the mark. It is the sheer opposite of what Jesus meant.

4. Were David and Jonathan Lovers? Well, it was inevitable. You knew eventually this video would raise this question. Unfortunately, our modern world is so overly-sexualized that it can recognize no other love than sexual love. Eros love so dominates modern thinking, that there can be no other options.

C.S. Lewis lamented this very thing when he talked about male friendships, which he said could be even more intimate (in a non-sexual way) than male-female relationships. Lewis said, “Those who cannot conceive Friendship as a substantive love but only as a disguise or elaboration of Eros betray the fact that they have never had a Friend.” Sadly, the History Channel has succumbed to this very problem.

The truth of the matter is that there is zero evidence that David and Jonathan had a sexual relationship. And the Bible is usually quite blunt about such things; again the Bible doesn’t hide sexual impropriety in other stories, so why would they hide it here?

5. Was Sodom condemned for lack of hospitality? One of the most audacious parts of the video is the claim that the city of Sodom was condemned only for lack of hospitality to Lot and the angels, and not for anything else (like sexual/homosexual promiscuity). But, this interpretation just doesn’t hold up.

First, even if the interpretation is true, it has nothing to do with whether the Bible condemns homosexuality. Even if Sodom was only condemned for lack of hospitality, there are still numerous other passages that make it clear that homosexuality is not condoned by the Bible.

Second, the city of Sodom was already under God’s condemnation before the events concerning Lot and the angels. Gen 18:20 tells us that “the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave.” Apparently, Sodom had been committing grave sins for some length of time. Is this describing just the ongoing lack of hospitality? That is difficult to believe.

Third, nowhere in Scripture does it tell us that Sodom was condemned for lack of hospitality. But Scripture does link Sodom with sexual deviancy. Jude 1:7: “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” This is a clear reference to not only deviant sexual behavior, but homosexual behavior.

In the end, the History Channel has produced a documentary with one simple purpose: to create confusion in people’s minds about what the Bible teaches about sex. No doubt, many will watch such a video and conclude that there is no clear sexual guidance in the Bible; and therefore they can choose whichever sexual path feels best to them.

However, Jesus has a very different perspective about such things. He is not at all confused and unclear. He is very plain in Matt 19:4-6 about the kind of relationship God has created for sex:

Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.

Duck Dynasty has achieved something no one would have thought possible a couple of years ago. It is a show about a down-t0-earth country family that eats together, prays together, and hunts together. They are a no-frills group whose wholesome outlook on life seems like a trip back to a long-forgotten time when parents actually taught their kids that “right” and “wrong” are not just personal preferences, and sex ought to happen in marriage.

Duck Dynasty is the anti-“Keeping up with the Kardashians.” And millions and millions of people are loving it.

Thus, I knew it was only a matter of time before the Duck Dynasty phenomenon would run into the progressive culture of the American left. Sooner or later the left would learn that these folks were Christians. Sooner or later they would learn that they think homosexuality was a sin. Sooner or later this was going to blow up.

Yesterday it did. Phil Robertson, the head of the Duck Dynasty family, in an interview with GQ declared homosexuality to be a sin. Gay-rights groups complained and called for him to be fired. And A&E effectually fired him (what they call an “indefinite hiatus”).

Now, it should be noted that Robertson offered some graphic descriptions of body parts that were not necessary nor helpful. It definitely didn’t serve his cause (nor the cause of Christ) to speak in such a crass manner. However, the objection from various homosexual organizations was focused not on such language, but on his belief that homosexuality was sinful.

Of course, expressing religious views ought not to get a person fired. It didn’t have to happen like this. In prior generations, when someone expressed their religious views, those who disagreed would still acknowledge that a person had a right to hold those views without being prosecuted and persecuted by the state or by anyone else. It is a little thing called the freedom of religion.

My how things have changed.

Now, if you happen to express your own religious views, and happen to disagree with the radical homosexual agenda of our modern world, then you are threatened, intimidated, attacked and your livelihood is destroyed.

And ironically, all this bullying is done in the name of “tolerance.” For a group that seems to use this word in every other sentence, it is remarkable that the homosexual community cannot see how intolerant they are being of anyone who might disagree.

The desire is not for dialogue. The desire is to eliminate anyone who opposes them.

I might suggest an alternative response from the homosexual community that would embody the tolerance they say they value:

We here at GLAAD were disappointed to hear that Phil Robertson thinks homosexuality is a sin. We disagree. However, we acknowledge that he has the right to hold and proclaim these views, just as we have the right to hold and proclaim our views. If we want Americans to be more tolerant of homosexuality, we could hardly accomplish that goal by being intolerant of others who disagree with us. So, we want to say that we respect and tolerate Mr. Robertson’s views, even though we disagree with them. We hope this attitude of mutual respect can allow for more dialogue and conversation about these important issues.

Unfortunately, I fear we will never hear a response like this ever again from the homosexual community. Why? Because they don’t just want the freedom to be homosexual. They want approval of homosexuality. And they will never feel that approval as long as people are allowed to disagree with them.

So get ready. As the federal government embraces the gay agenda, and the intolerant attitude that goes along with it, then we will no longer be living in the America we know. The only way the government will be able to squash all dissent is to change from a country that loves freedom and to become a country that is totalitarian.

But there are always patriots in such circumstances. Phil Robertson is one of them.

Politics can be ugly business.And there are things that happen (on both sides of the aisle) that are unfortunate and disturbing.But, unfortunately, the standard evangelical reaction to such a reality is to declare that no political party is better than any other.It doesn’t matter how you vote as a Christian, we are told.

Even if both parties are flawed to some degree, the real question still remains, namely which political party is the closest to the principles and ethics laid out in Scripture? After all, at the end of the day, the Christian still has to go to the polls and vote for someone. And surely he wants to vote for the party that is closest to the teachings of Scripture.

I think the claim that both parties are equally flawed is highly problematic when one considers that Democrats and Republicans have near opposite political platforms on almost every major issue. Is it really likely that there would be two parties with nearly opposite values and ethical positions and, at the same time, neither would be closer to the teachings of Scripture? I suppose it is possible. But, is also very unlikely.

One wonders how the “Jesus is neither a Democrat nor Republican” approach would have worked for Dietrich Bonhoeffer as he navigated the frightening political landscape of Germany in the 1930’s or 1940’s. Would he have been compelled by the idea that the Scripture was neutral about whether Christians should vote for Hitler’s socialist party? The sad truth is that many Christians and many churches in that day went along with Hitler’s politics and offered no protest. Bonhoeffer disagreed and argued that it was the Christian’s duty to oppose the National Socialist party. I doubt Bonhoeffer would have been persuaded by the argument that “good Christians are on both sides of this issue.”

In light of the sad events of the last week, I am hopeful that this “all political parties are the same” misconception can be put to rest once and for all. In both the SCOTUS decision in support of homosexual marriage, and in the abortion debate in Texas, there was loud cheering on the one side and deep sadness on the other.It’s hard to imagine a deeper divide.

Indeed, when one looks back over the last period of time and asks which political party has been the one promoting, endorsing, and encouraging two of the most serious anti-Christian positions—abortion and homosexual marriage—the answer is not hard to find.

And these are not minor issues.One has resulted in millions upon millions of lost lives.And the other has redefined one of the most central and enduring institutions in human civilization.

Evangelicals have some serious soul searching to do when it comes to how we vote.The recent 5-4 split on the Supreme Court, and Obama’s endorsement of the majority decision, shows that all political parties are not the same.

I wonder what Bonhoeffer would say if he were living in America today.Would he say, “It doesn’t matter which party Christians vote for”?After this week’s events, I doubt it.

In a recent article, Barnabas Piper criticizes Christians for the manner in which they confront the sin of homosexuality. The problem with these confrontations, argues Piper, is that they are not equally distributed over other sins. What about the sin of fornication? Or divorce? Why do these not get equal attention?

This is certainly one of the most common objections to Christians who confront homosexuality. But, I think there are a number of problems with it. Let me mention just a few:

1. This objection can be a distraction from the real issue. When someone is confronted with sin, one of the most common defenses is to “accuse the accuser.” Maybe they weren’t compassionate enough. Maybe they weren’t gentle enough. Maybe the confrontation wasn’t executed precisely right.

While these reverse accusations might even be true, they are often made in order to deflect attention from the main issue, namely the sin in a person’s life. There is no better way to avoid repentance than to say to one’s accuser, “Oh, yeah? Well you sin too.” The best defense is a good offense.

It would be like complaining to the police officer about getting a speeding ticket simply because he didn’t give everyone in your lane a speeding ticket.

Thus, when Christians have the courage to confront a sin like homosexuality in our culture (and yes, it does take courage), I am not sure the main focus needs to be on how poorly they confront other sins.

2. This objection is not entirely accurate. I think it is substantially misleading to suggest that Christians are not busy confronting sins like divorce, adultery, and fornication. Sure, there are plenty of churches out there that are unwilling to address these issues (just like there are many churches that don’t even preach the gospel). But, for the most part, evangelical churches are quite willing to speak out on these matters. Youth groups encourage sexual chastity, church’s offer sexual addiction seminars, and ministries offer help to save troubled marriages that are headed for divorce.

These sorts of things are missed because they are not as public. The reason that Christians are speaking out against homosexuality publicly is because they are being forced to do so by the aggressive homosexual agenda in this country. Christians are simply responding to the issue incessantly raised by the media and by popular culture. If the media kept pounding away on the issue of adultery, I am confident Christians would respond to that issue as well.

3. This objection is theologically misinformed. Piper’s concern that Christians prosecute all sins equally is based on the fact that he sees all sins as the same. He states, “What we fail to recognize is that every sin from the mildest gossip to the wildest orgy is a mark of the fall, proof of sins twisting God’s good creation.” Yes, every sin is a mark of the fall. And any sin is worthy of God’s eternal condemnation. But, and this is key, that does not mean every sin is equally heinous.

Missing in Piper’s analysis is a careful discussion about how some sins are more grievous than others and therefore warrant a more vigorous Christian response. I appreciate Robert Gagnon’s fine response to this problem:

Some sins, by virtue of being more foundational violations of God’s ethical standards, are more severe than others. Saying this does not excuse any sin nor justify hateful reactions to those who commit greater sins. It simply underscores the absurdity of claiming that all sin is equal in all respects before God. Cutting in line is not the moral equivalent of Hitler’s killing of 6 million Jews, and anyone who argues that it is has lost his or her moral compass. Having sex with one’s mother is worse than gluttony or slight gossip. Is this not obvious?

Homosexual practice is a direct violation of what Jesus understood to be the foundation for all intra-human sexual ethics—“male and female he [God] created them” (Genesis 1:27).

If the sin of homosexuality hits at the core of what it means to be human, and thus hits at the core of our being made in the image of God, and is the very issue being raised perpetually in our culture, then Christians ought not to be chided for challenging it more than other sins.

Now that we are in the thick of the political season, we are beginning to see the inevitable, and emotionally-charged, debates about the key moral issues of our day—homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. But, as soon as any group speaks out against these practices, the mainstream media, right on cue, is quick to chide them for forcing their morality onto others. The days of using morality as a political weapon are over, we are told. The “moral majority” of the 1980’s (Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, et al.) has lost and we need to move beyond such self-righteous posturing.

But, is the age of the “moral majority” really over? I would suggest that it is not. Certainly the era of the Christian Coalition led by Falwell and Robertson is over. But, something remarkable has happened since then. A new morality majority has emerged—but this time it is on the left. Now the very groups that once chided Falwell and Robertson for appealing to morality, are doing it themselves as they defend practices like homosexual marriage. To deny same-sex couples the right to marry is now described as “wrong” and “evil” and “bigoted” and “mean” and “hateful.” When you hear such language from advocates of homosexual marriage it is clear they are not just on a political crusade, they are on a moral crusade. In their mind, they are overturning evil and injustice in the world.

The problem with this whole scenario is that Christians are slow to recognize what is happening. It hasn’t dawned on us that we are losing more than a political argument. We are losing a moral argument. In this battle, we have lost the moral high ground.

But, there is a way forward. Although it is ironic that those advocating sexual promiscuity are doing so on moral grounds (just think about that for a moment), it presents a clear opportunity for Christians to make their case for the truth of biblical Christianity. Two considerations:

1. We need to point out the inconsistency of this new morality. For years, Christians have been critiqued for imposing their morality on others and for bringing their own moral proclivities into the public sphere. Morals are private, we are told. Keep them out of politics. But, here is where the inconsistency of the left needs to be pointed out. Contrary to their own rules of engagement, they have made moral arguments for practices like homosexual marriage time and time again. Indeed, these are aggressive arguments that make sweeping condemnations of all who might disagree. And often the condemnations are followed by lawsuits, boycotts, and protests against business or individuals who express a differing view.

Of course, this inconsistency has been routinely missed by the media and by cultural and political leaders. This new moral majority is not called “self-righteous” (as was the old moral majority in the 1980’s). But, this should come as no surprise. The new morality gets a pass for one simple reason. It fits with what most people already believe.

2.We need to challenge the intellectual foundation for this new morality. Whenever issues like homosexual marriage are debated in the public sphere, Christians have made a bit of a tactical mistake. We have focused our time on the merits of each moral position (whether such a practice helps or hurts a society), and have not asked where morals come from in the first place. On what grounds does this new moral majority declare homosexual marriage to be “good”? And where do they get concepts of “good” and “evil” and “right” and “wrong”? On why should we even care about issues of “fairness” and “equality”?

Christians have answers to these questions. We believe that moral absolutes are grounded in the very character of God himself and revealed in his Word. Indeed, we would argue that without a theistic worldview, there would be no basis for any morals at all. One cannot make moral claims with just any old worldview. One needs a worldview that can provide a coherent reason for why something is really wrong or really right.

It is here that the advocates of the new morality run into some problems. Are they really willing to invoke God as the basis for their sweeping moral agenda? Doubtful. For one, the left has worked quite diligently to get God out of every public venue, from the pledge of allegiance to public prayer. Moreover, the DNC has just taken “God” out of its 2012 platform. So, it would be shocking, to say the least, if suddenly they invoked God as the basis for their new moral claims.

But, the problem is bigger than this. Even if they did invoke God as a basis for supporting practices like homosexual marriage, where could they turn to show that God has declared his support for such a practice? Certainly, the major theistic religions—Christianity, Judaism, Islam—all explicitly condemn such a practice. One would almost have to create a new theistic religion out of nothing, in order to find a “god” who is willing to support this particular behavior.

I suppose the new moral majority could forge ahead with their moral crusade without any appeal to God. But, an atheistic worldview provides no basis for moral norms. If there is no God, then why does it matter what a person does to another person? There is nothing “moral” about our actions under such circumstances. They are just actions. In fact, it was this realization that led C.S. Lewis to abandon his atheism: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust?. . . Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning” (Mere Christianity, 42).

In the end, the new moral majority finds itself in an awkward, and intellectually indefensible position. They need a transcendent God in order for moral norms to exist, yet they are working at every turn against God’s role in the public sphere. Moreover, they are advocating a behavior (e.g., homosexual marriage) that is rejected by every major theistic religion.

In all of this, Paul’s description in Romans 1 rings true: “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but became futile in their thinking” (Rom 1:21).

Michael J. Kruger

Welcome to the website of Michael J. Kruger, President and Samuel C. Patterson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC. For more on my background and research interests, see here.

About

I am President and Samuel C. Patterson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC. In addition, I am an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and serve as an Associate Pastor (part-time, of course) at my home church, Uptown PCA.